You know I used to have Bird above Magic but man...

Bird is on record TWICE as saying that Magic was better than him.

[video=youtube;FoFbi-w-eeY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoFbi-w-eeY[/video]

[video=youtube;ad9UqapGC7o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad9UqapGC7o[/video]

That wasn't him being courteous or humble, that was him being HONEST. We know this because Larry Bird was the most arrogant son of a bitch in the history of the game and didn't think there was a soul on earth that was better than him. So when that man looks into the camera and says that guy was better than me, you kind of have to just the dead the conversation at that point. :oldlol:

I'm sure you'll have some people say he was just being generous. You might even have some people saying that his game 4 press conference was a ploy to try and get in Magic's head and soften him up. But no, that guy is being honest.

In real time I think the general consensus was that Bird was better than Magic. I don't have first hand memory of this of course but based on what I've seen and heard that seems to be the consensus. Bird was considered the better all around player and Magic while great had the benefit of being paired with arguably the best center ever up until that point.

But man... Magic beat him in college, and he beat him 2-1 in the NBA. I'm not saying that's the be all and end all, I know other factors are always at play, but in that moment after Game 4 I could see why Bird felt vulnerable enough to say that. This guy was the hardest working mf'er on god's green earth and was insanely gifted but no matter what he did he couldn't shake that Earvin motherf*cker.

Just food for thought.

Larry was better if you compare their peaks. Magic had the longevity edge, which is why you see him ranked ahead of Larry more often than not on all-time lists.

I feel they are both slightly overrated. Magic and Bird are responsible for saving the NBA. The league was in turmoil when they entered the NBA, Larry was the great white hope that delivered while Magic was a likable personality that was loved by fans and media, also helped that both played for big market teams that met in the Finals a few times. Because of those facts, it gave the NBA popularity it had not seen since the Wilt-Russell days. They hold an important place in history for saving this league and because of that, they get a bit overrated as overall players. Bird gets lots of passes for some of his playoff failures, despite having this reputation for being clutch. Magic's defense was horrific, all-time bad as he aged.

You can make a good argument that Curry has surpassed Magic as a player, they are at least neck and neck.

I'm also taking peak Jokic over both.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15046496]Larry was better if you compare their peaks. Magic had the longevity edge, which is why you see him ranked ahead of Larry more often than not on all-time lists.

I feel they are both slightly overrated. Magic and Bird are responsible for saving the NBA. The league was in turmoil when they entered the NBA, Larry was the great white hope that delivered while Magic was a likable personality that was loved by fans and media, also helped that both played for big market teams that met in the Finals a few times. Because of those facts, it gave the NBA popularity it had not seen since the Wilt-Russell days. They hold an important place in history for saving this league and because of that, they get a bit overrated as overall players. Bird gets lots of passes for some of his playoff failures, despite having this reputation for being clutch. Magic's defense was horrific, all-time bad as he aged.

You can make a good argument that Curry has surpassed Magic as a player, they are at least neck and neck.

I'm also taking peak Jokic over both.[/QUOTE]

Magic and Bird have reached the point where their resumes are quite a bit better than their on court abilities. I am taking Curry over Magic in the 3-point era and I think he is the better player, but Magic's resume is "greater".

Jokic and Bird have the same situation. Jokic is better than Bird, but Bird's resume is still a bit "greater" than Jokic's.

I'd take Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe over Bird/Magic too.

What does Joker do better than Bird other than rebound and score in the low post?

In terms of passing and playmaking they're both elite, in terms of shooting they're both elite. Mid range and all around ISO game clearly goes to Bird, defense the edge clearly goes to Bird.

I'm not really seeing a case for Joker being better at all but I'm willing to hear your arguments. I'm sure it will involve a lot of made up math equations.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046531]What does Joker do better than Bird other than rebound and score in the low post?

In terms of passing and playmaking they're both elite, in terms of shooting they're both elite. Mid range and all around ISO game clearly goes to Bird, defense the edge clearly goes to Bird.

I'm not really seeing a case for Joker being better at all but I'm willing to hear your arguments. I'm sure it will involve a lot of made up math equations.[/QUOTE]

:lol

See, I can't talk to you about Jokic because you are so ignorant about the data and eye test. To even make the post you made is ridiculous.

Jokic is better at scoring, rebounding, and passing. Jokic is legit a better mid range and perimeter shooter over Bird. Bird does have the edge on defense but it's a slight edge. Bird would not be all-nba defender in Jokic's era.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046531]What does Joker do better than Bird other than rebound and score in the low post?

In terms of passing and playmaking they're both elite, in terms of shooting they're both elite. Mid range and all around ISO game clearly goes to Bird, defense the edge clearly goes to Bird.

I'm not really seeing a case for Joker being better at all but I'm willing to hear your arguments. I'm sure it will involve a lot of made up math equations.[/QUOTE]

ISB will come in a few hours to paste some efficiency stats in favor of Jokic, he will ignore the era differences however.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046536]:lol

See, I can't talk to you about Jokic because you are so ignorant about the data and eye test. To even make the post you made is ridiculous.

[B][SIZE=4]Jokic is better at scoring[/SIZE][/B], rebounding, and passing. Jokic is legit a better mid range and perimeter shooter over Bird. Bird does have the edge on defense but it's a slight edge. Bird would not be all-nba defender in Jokic's era.[/QUOTE]

Explain how. Use specifics and describe what skills he has that are superior.

Do it without referencing "data".

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046536]:lol

See, I can't talk to you about Jokic because you are so ignorant about the data and eye test. To even make the post you made is ridiculous.

[B]Jokic is better at scoring, rebounding, and passing. Jokic is legit a better mid range and perimeter shooter over Bird. Bird does have the edge on defense but it's a slight edge. Bird would not be all-nba defender in Jokic's era.[/B][/QUOTE]

1980 - Conf Finals
1981 - Title
1982 - Conf Finals
1984 - Title
1985 - NBA Finals
1986 - Title
1987 - NBA Finals
1988 - Conf Finals

In 9 seasons Bird made a run to at the very least the Conference championship 8 of those seasons, and only one time did they lose to the team that didn't win the title. Jokic has only made it to the conference championship level twice. Stat nerds love Jokic but he hasn't done enough to win when it counts to rank him against guys that have had dynasties of title contention.

Magic was on a team with 6 Hall of Famers and one guy that was better than him (KAJ)

[QUOTE=highwhey;15046537]ISB will come in a few hours to paste some efficiency stats in favor of Jokic, he will ignore the era differences however.[/QUOTE]

Even if you adjust for era differences, Jokic is still far more efficient than Bird as a scorer.

Jokic had a season where he had a 70 TS%, when the league average was at 58%. That is pretty insane.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15046557]Even if you adjust for era differences, Jokic is still far more efficient than Bird as a scorer.

Jokic had a season where he had a 70 TS%, when the league average was at 58%. That is pretty insane.[/QUOTE]

jokic quits when he's out of breath, which is often. he also depends and benefits heavily from teammates, and the moment they stop producing at a high rate, he's garbage.

[QUOTE=highwhey;15046558]jokic quits when he's out of breath, which is often. he also depends and benefits heavily from teammates, and the moment they stop producing at a high rate, he's garbage.[/QUOTE]

Jokic can get overrated in some aspects but this is flat out just a gigantic projection from an unathletic fat Mexican guy.

Lmao.

Steph being above Magic has no argument in the way we rank players. Absolutely NO case.

Magic has more:

Championships
Regular Season MVPs
Finals MVPs
First Team All-NBAs


Steph has one edge, longevity. That's not enough.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15046620][b]Steph being above Magic has no argument in the way we rank players. Absolutely NO case.

Magic has more:

Championships
Regular Season MVPs
Finals MVPs
First Team All-NBAs[/b]


Steph has one edge, longevity. That's not enough.[/QUOTE]


Well thats always been a stupid way to compare players, altho I happen to agree anyway that Id prefer to have Magic if we're comparing each to his own era. Which isnt a knock on Steph at all, I just think he's not quite as valuable as Magic Johnson, which I think most would agree is a fair opinion to hold.

As far as Magic and Bird, it's just two different styles. If you dont know who else is going to be on the team and youre just taking one guy to build around, it's really a genuine coin flip IMO.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046542]Explain how. Use specifics and describe what skills he has that are superior.

Do it without referencing "data".[/QUOTE]

Jokic is better from everywhere on the floor except free throws. Unfortunately we don't have a ton of data on Bird like we do Jokic.

Go ahead and think of every shot/part of the floor...and realize Jokic is elite at all spots. He has the highest TS% of all time for volume scorers. His scoring/shooting splits look like a mix of Shaq, Dirk, and Nash...

Magic would be a dominant player with or without the 3pt line. Steph could only dominate with a 3pt line.

That right there tells me who the better "basketball player" is.

I don't think Magic would have any difficulty whatsoever adapting to the modern style. Curry on the other hand would be a drastically different player if you applied the rules from the previous eras.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046629][B][SIZE=3]Jokic is better from everywhere on the floor except free throws.[/SIZE][/B] Unfortunately we don't have a ton of data on Bird like we do Jokic.

Go ahead and think of every shot/part of the floor...and realize Jokic is elite at all spots. He has the highest TS% of all time for volume scorers. His scoring/shooting splits look like a mix of Shaq, Dirk, and Nash...[/QUOTE]

Admit you've never picked up a basketball in your entire life.

No one who has ever played basketball and knows about basketball would ever say this. Of course you had to hide behind random stats even though you were asked not to.

[QUOTE=John8204;15046545]1980 - Conf Finals
1981 - Title
1982 - Conf Finals
1984 - Title
1985 - NBA Finals
1986 - Title
1987 - NBA Finals
1988 - Conf Finals

In 9 seasons Bird made a run to at the very least the Conference championship 8 of those seasons, and only one time did they lose to the team that didn't win the title. Jokic has only made it to the conference championship level twice. Stat nerds love Jokic but he hasn't done enough to win when it counts to rank him against guys that have had dynasties of title contention.

Magic was on a team with 6 Hall of Famers and one guy that was better than him (KAJ)[/QUOTE]

How does this same dumb conversation pop up? Bird and Magic played on way more stacked teams than Jokic...it's a TEAM game dude. Jokic has never played with a player who made all-star, all-defense, or all-nba, which is actually a record for any MVP winner. And Jokic has been in the league for like 11 years lol. He does have a pretty talented cast in a vacuum, but nothing noteworthy compared to plenty of other current/past teams. And on top of that, his best running mates MPJ and Jamal Murry missed MULTIPLE PLAYOFF RUNS due to injury, so Jokic had no help at all.

Bird/Magic NEVER had a team talent issue in their primes.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046631]Admit you've never picked up a basketball in your entire life.

No one who has ever played basketball and knows about basketball would ever say this. Of course you had to hide behind random stats even though you were asked not to.[/QUOTE]

Scoring splits are "random stats" now? You mean those are facts that prove my argument?

Jokic is for sure a better scorer than Bird - prime for prime. Regular season, playoffs, finals, you name it. Jokic is better. Why are you surprised by this? Have you missed the last six years?

Jokic is arguably the best offensive player of all time, and somehow you are surprised that he is an incredible scorer?

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046658]Scoring splits are "random stats" now? You mean those are facts that prove my argument?

Jokic is for sure a better scorer than Bird - prime for prime. Regular season, playoffs, finals, you name it. Jokic is better. Why are you surprised by this? Have you missed the last six years?

[B]Jokic is arguably the best offensive player of all time[/B], and somehow you are surprised that he is an incredible scorer?[/QUOTE]


No, he's not. He's not even the most dominant offensive player in the inflated stats era. There is no cogent argument whatsoever for him being the best offensive player of all time.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046485]Bird is on record TWICE as saying that Magic was better than him.

[video=youtube;FoFbi-w-eeY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoFbi-w-eeY[/video]

[video=youtube;ad9UqapGC7o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad9UqapGC7o[/video]

That wasn't him being courteous or humble, that was him being HONEST. We know this because Larry Bird was the most arrogant son of a bitch in the history of the game and didn't think there was a soul on earth that was better than him. So when that man looks into the camera and says that guy was better than me, you kind of have to just the dead the conversation at that point. :oldlol:

I'm sure you'll have some people say he was just being generous. You might even have some people saying that his game 4 press conference was a ploy to try and get in Magic's head and soften him up. But no, that guy is being honest.

In real time I think the general consensus was that Bird was better than Magic. I don't have first hand memory of this of course but based on what I've seen and heard that seems to be the consensus. Bird was considered the better all around player and Magic while great had the benefit of being paired with arguably the best center ever up until that point.

But man... Magic beat him in college, and he beat him 2-1 in the NBA. I'm not saying that's the be all and end all, I know other factors are always at play, but in that moment after Game 4 I could see why Bird felt vulnerable enough to say that. This guy was the hardest working mf'er on god's green earth and was insanely gifted but no matter what he did he couldn't shake that Earvin motherf*cker.

Just food for thought.[/QUOTE]


Love Bird's speech at the Hall of Fame!!! One thing that comes to mind is Bird ( or any player) cannot really appreciate how other players see them = they cannot see themselves. I think if you ask the players in their era who was better, you would get support for both guys. I think an accurate statement would be Magic has the better resume but Bird was the better player. I think we can all agree the west was by far the weaker conference and Bird never played with a teammate as good as Kareem. The NCAA championship game featured a much better team in MSU. Indiana State had the #1 ranking only because they were the only undefeated team in the country and it was thought ISU was going to lose early in the tournament. ISU actually upset Oklahoma and then Arkansas and then DePaul before finally losing to MSU.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046658]Scoring splits are "random stats" now? You mean those are facts that prove my argument?

Jokic is for sure a better scorer than Bird - prime for prime. Regular season, playoffs, finals, you name it. Jokic is better. Why are you surprised by this? Have you missed the last six years?

Jokic is arguably the best offensive player of all time, and somehow you are surprised that he is an incredible scorer?[/QUOTE]

I feel like I'm saying this in every thread so I just quoted myself:

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046454]If you body Joker away from the basket where he can't just back you down, he's extremely limited in what he can do. He's too slow and too awkward and can't beat his man off the dribble. Alex Caruso all but locked his ass up and forced him to pass out of those spots. It's why the team played through Murray in those situations and not Joker. They RELY on that two man game because Joker isn't the automatic bucket you think he is.

He's not even in the same discussion as Bird. Bird could face you up and get a clean shot off anytime he wanted.[/QUOTE]

^ I want you to counter the facts in that post or explain to me why they aren't facts.

Stats stats stats. Who tf cares. There's like 100 players scoring 30 right now. Everyone on the team can hit open 3's. Players are afraid to play defense.

You can only compare stats in relation to their era, not across time. And who gives AF about TS%, how is that even a relevant statistic? What does it measure?? Oh that's right, it measures jack shit. :oldlol:

When Joker has to go to the line for the game winning FT, does his TS% come into play? Does it come into play when the game is on the line and his team is down 3? What about when they're down 2?

These are all vastly different circumstances. A field goal is not a 3-pointer is not a free throw. They're different shots altogether and measure different things. Combining them into some average accomplishes [B]nothing[/B].

Can Joker even move without the ball? :oldlol: Is he running around the court looking to get open like Bird? Can he shoot a jumper in perfect form immediately off the catch like Bird?? Can he execute a turnaround off the catch like Bird?? Can he pull up like Bird. :oldlol: Jokic is a low post monster no doubt but nowhere else on the court is he BETTER than Bird.

Give me Bird's quickness and mobility over Joker's size and strength any day.

[QUOTE=mr4speed;15046734]Love Bird's speech at the Hall of Fame!!! One thing that comes to mind is Bird ( or any player) cannot really appreciate how other players see them = they cannot see themselves. I think if you ask the players in their era who was better, you would get support for both guys. I think an accurate statement would be Magic has the better resume but Bird was the better player. I think we can all agree the west was by far the weaker conference and Bird never played with a teammate as good as Kareem. The NCAA championship game featured a much better team in MSU. Indiana State had the #1 ranking only because they were the only undefeated team in the country and it was thought ISU was going to lose early in the tournament. ISU actually upset Oklahoma and then Arkansas and then DePaul before finally losing to MSU.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the argument can go one way or the other. I don't mind when people choose Magic even though I personally lean towards Bird.

But if I can play devil's advocate, you say that Bird has never played with someone as good as Big Lew. But man, Kevin McHale was pretty damn good. He's like really, really good. Elite talent. Tough, gritty. There are people who say he was the single toughest player they ever had to guard. Point is Bird had a pretty damn good team himself. If you wanna argue that Magic's best teammate was better than Bird's best teammate then fine but if Larry is the single best player on the court then shouldn't that make up for it? You're the best player on the floor and you have a super elite team, what's the problem? You're telling me the problem is Big Lew?

Like I said I'm just playing devil's advocate. There's really no right or wrong answer here. They really are two sides of the same coin. Eternally linked and will forever be eternally compared.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046735]I feel like I'm saying this in every thread so I just quoted myself:



^ I want you to counter the facts in that post or explain to me why they aren't facts.

Stats stats stats. Who tf cares. There's like 100 players scoring 30 right now. Everyone on the team can hit open 3's. Players are afraid to play defense.

You can only compare stats in relation to their era, not across time. And who gives AF about TS%, how is that even a relevant statistic? What does it measure?? Oh that's right, it measures jack shit. :oldlol:

When Joker has to go to the line for the game winning FT, does his TS% come into play? Does it come into play when the game is on the line and his team is down 3? What about when they're down 2?

These are all vastly different circumstances. A field goal is not a 3-pointer is not a free throw. They're different shots altogether and measure different things. Combining them into some average accomplishes [B]nothing[/B].

Can Joker even move without the ball? :oldlol: Is he running around the court looking to get open like Bird? Can he shoot a jumper in perfect form immediately off the catch like Bird?? Can he execute a turnaround off the catch like Bird?? Can he pull up like Bird. :oldlol: Jokic is a low post monster no doubt but nowhere else on the court is he BETTER than Bird.

Give me Bird's quickness and mobility over Joker's size and strength any day.[/QUOTE]

Just stop. Like I said I can't even have a discussion because you are so ignorant and everything you are saying is either wrong or irrelevant. You are just a guy talking right now who is wrong, and I can't help you either because you need to start watching a ton of Jokic film, get the eye test done, and then verify the eye test via heavy data analysis.

Get back to me in a couple of months with a thesis level post, including citations and supporting video, and then you'll come to the obvious conclusion which is Jokic is a better on the court player than Bird.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046742]Just stop. Like I said I can't even have a discussion because you are so ignorant and everything you are saying is either wrong or irrelevant. You are just a guy talking right now who is wrong, and I can't help you either because you need to start watching a ton of Jokic film, get the eye test done, and then verify the eye test via heavy data analysis.

Get back to me in a couple of months with a thesis level post, including citations and supporting video, and then you'll come to the obvious conclusion which is Jokic is a better on the court player than Bird.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046632]How does this same dumb conversation pop up? Bird and Magic played on way more stacked teams than Jokic...it's a TEAM game dude. [B]Jokic has never played with a player who made all-star, all-defense, or all-nba, which is actually a record for any MVP winner. [/B]And Jokic has been in the league for like 11 years lol. He does have a pretty talented cast in a vacuum, but nothing noteworthy compared to plenty of other current/past teams. And on top of that, his best running mates MPJ and Jamal Murry missed MULTIPLE PLAYOFF RUNS due to injury, so Jokic had no help at all.

Bird/Magic NEVER had a team talent issue in their primes.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://basketballforever.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Westbrook.jpg[/IMG]

Your excuse is now outdated.

Murray has never officially been selected to all-star but everyone knows that when he's at his best he's star caliber. He had an amazing finals and the Nuggets don't win their championship without him.

And that's beside the point. To argue that Bird and Magic played on more "stacked" teams compared to Joker is ridiculous because teams as a whole are wayyy more deep now in terms of shooting. In the 80's you had star players sure but the gap between them and everyone else on the team was huge. AC Green was good at his job but he usually wasn't the reason you lost. Danny Ainge was good at his job but he wasn't the reason you lost. But on any given night if you play the Nuggets, Aaron Gordon could be the reason you lost. Earlier this year he went 10/11 from three. On another night it could be Christian Braun. Every single player on the team is a threat to score. Star players from back then would still have a job today but the role players? The 4th man down and the rest? Lol most of them couldn't get a job in today's league. They don't shoot the 3 and they don't spread the floor. And it's not like you need any of them for their interior defense anymore.

I'm not saying Joker has had these amazing teams that were loaded with star talent, but he HAS had some good teams. They WERE in a position to beat the Thunder last year. Joker was too inconsistent.

Murray averaged All-NBA numbers throughout Denver's run to the title. How one plays before the All-Star break doesn't mean shit when it comes to the postseason 3mos. later. Sure, he missed out on a bonus but guarantee he'd trade that off every time as long as he plays well like he did a few years ago.

The big difference between Larry and Magic is that Magic wasn't expected to be LA's first scoring option right off the bat like Bird pretty much was. Magic wasn't asked to look to score first until his 8th season. Would be interesting how Magic would've turned out if he was given the score first role right off the bat, while expected to facilitate but at a lesser role than he had at LA.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046737]I agree that the argument can go one way or the other. I don't mind when people choose Magic even though I personally lean towards Bird.

But if I can play devil's advocate, you say that Bird has never played with someone as good as Big Lew. But man, Kevin McHale was pretty damn good. He's like really, really good. Elite talent. Tough, gritty. There are people who say he was the single toughest player they ever had to guard. Point is Bird had a pretty damn good team himself. If you wanna argue that Magic's best teammate was better than Bird's best teammate then fine but if Larry is the single best player on the court then shouldn't that make up for it? You're the best player on the floor and you have a super elite team, what's the problem? You're telling me the problem is Big Lew?

Like I said I'm just playing devil's advocate. There's really no right or wrong answer here. They really are two sides of the same coin. Eternally linked and will forever be eternally compared.[/QUOTE]

Devil's advocate is fun to play. For me I look at the 1985 Finals where Kareem after having a terrible game 1 ( the memorial day massacre) came back in the next 5 games and put up a per game of 28.4 points and 10.2 rebounds and 6.0 assists and was the FMVP. I have seen a short video of McHale talking about trying to guard Kareem and the skyhook = " I have got nothing to stop that"!!. Also Cooper was a premier defender and Cooper was almost obsessed with guarding Bird = watching film of Bird on his own. Cooper was DPOY I think in 1987. For those that look at rings, If Parish had outplayed Kareem in 1985 and was the FMVP does that "prove" Bird is better than Magic? I think absolutely not but yet that is how many seem to view the result of the 3 match ups. Kareem actually outplayed Parish in all 3 Finals and IMO if LA had won game 7 in 1984, Kareem would have been the FMVP.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15046620]Steph being above Magic has no argument in the way we rank players. Absolutely NO case.

Magic has more:

Championships
Regular Season MVPs
Finals MVPs
First Team All-NBAs


Steph has one edge, longevity. That's not enough.[/QUOTE]

Steph has always been underrated and every excuse used to downplay his achievements while Magic has been the opposite where every excuse has been used to inflate his accomplishments.

For a long time and some people still do say that Durant was a better player than Steph. On the other hand you have Magic with Kareem with Magic getting the KD treatment.

Steph should have been in the running for multiple MVPs but the criteria was changed many years to reduce his chances. On the other hand Magic was getting MVPs when it should have gone to someone else.

Steph has led all sorts of teams. Magic was on a stacked team for his whole career.

Steph played in the tougher conference his whole career. Magic played in the weaker conference for most of his.

Magic may have more in quantity due to the league giving him every advantage but the quality of Steph's championships are higher, the quality of Steph's accolades are higher, the quality of Steph's achievements are higher.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046630]Magic would be a dominant player with or without the 3pt line. Steph could only dominate with a 3pt line.

That right there tells me who the better "basketball player" is.

I don't think Magic would have any difficulty whatsoever adapting to the modern style. Curry on the other hand would be a drastically different player if you applied the rules from the previous eras.[/QUOTE]

All speculation. Who really knows if Magic could adapt to a higher three point shooting league? If anyone should have an advantage in the speculative arena it should be Curry who is playing in the more modern league with a deeper talent pool.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15046630]Magic would be a dominant player with or without the 3pt line. Steph could only dominate with a 3pt line.

That right there tells me who the better "basketball player" is.

I don't think Magic would have any difficulty whatsoever adapting to the modern style. Curry on the other hand would be a drastically different player if you applied the rules from the previous eras.[/QUOTE]

Shaq's only good because the paint exists. Weird argument.

Curry's game in the 90s looks more like Reggie Miller's than what he does today. He'd need to rely more on screens than shooting off the dribble to avoid getting beat up. But that doesn't change his impact much. It's more team and system reliant but he's playing in an era where guys are better at running systems. It's hard to imagine what it would look like exactly but he can run longer than Reggie can and shoots at a higher percentage. That's at least an MVP caliber player.

[QUOTE=John8204;15046776][IMG]https://basketballforever.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Westbrook.jpg[/IMG]

Your excuse is now outdated.[/QUOTE]

You guys really are dumb. The part of my post you quoted is referencing when those players are active teammates of Jokic. Russ was washed and a back up lol. Jokic's best teammate ever has been Jamal Murray, who only has a few healthy playoff runs under his belt, and Murray has never made any all-star, all-nba, or all-defense team.

Jokic, for his career, has factually the least decorated supporting cast of any MVP winner, which is insane considering Jokic has won 3 and got two 2nd place finishes.

Jokic factually has a bunch of rings if he has the teammates of other all-time greats.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15046790]Murray averaged All-NBA numbers throughout Denver's run to the title. How one plays before the All-Star break doesn't mean shit when it comes to the postseason 3mos. later. Sure, he missed out on a bonus but guarantee he'd trade that off every time as long as he plays well like he did a few years ago.[/QUOTE]

Wow, and what happened the one time in Jokic's prime where Murray played great? JOKIC WON THE CHIP!

Gee, if only Murray could have done that and even just stayed healthy in the other years.

I find it strange how these two seem to automatically leapfrog Shaq & Duncan in the rankings when they both had much better longevity and were better (at least arguably in Duncan's place) at their peak too.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15046849]I find it strange how these two seem to automatically leapfrog Shaq & Duncan in the rankings when they both had much better longevity and were better (at least arguably in Duncan's place) at their peak too.[/QUOTE]

I have Shaq and Duncan above Bird and Magic.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046846]You guys really are dumb. The part of my post you quoted is referencing when those players are active teammates of Jokic. Russ was washed and a back up lol. Jokic's best teammate ever has been Jamal Murray, who only has a few healthy playoff runs under his belt, and Murray has never made any all-star, all-nba, or all-defense team.

Jokic, for his career, has factually the least decorated supporting cast of any MVP winner, which is insane considering Jokic has won 3 and got two 2nd place finishes.

Jokic factually has a bunch of rings if he has the teammates of other all-time greats.[/QUOTE]

So you are saying Jokic wasn't able to elevate any of his teammates to All-Star level....

Larry Bird did it what three times with Parish, McHale, and Ainge
Magic did it with Norm Nixon, James Worthy, and AC Green

[QUOTE=John8204;15046856]So you are saying Jokic wasn't able to elevate any of his teammates to All-Star level....

Larry Bird did it what three times with Parish, McHale, and Ainge
Magic did it with Norm Nixon, James Worthy, and AC Green[/QUOTE]

The voters elevated ac to all star not magic

[QUOTE=John8204;15046856]So you are saying Jokic wasn't able to elevate any of his teammates to All-Star level....

Larry Bird did it what three times with Parish, McHale, and Ainge
Magic did it with Norm Nixon, James Worthy, and AC Green[/QUOTE]

No, Bird and Magic simply played with better talent relative to their eras. Magic isn't even a discussion, he was drafted to a stacked team and literally stayed in college an extra year to get to the Lakers. You didn't even mention Kareem...

Bird's team wasn't quite as stacked as the Lakers, but still a very talented team in their era.

Jokic hasn't had a squad like those ever.

[QUOTE=StrongLurk;15046861]No, Bird and Magic simply played with better talent relative to their eras. Magic isn't even a discussion, he was drafted to a stacked team and literally stayed in college an extra year to get to the Lakers. You didn't even mention Kareem...

Bird's team wasn't quite as stacked as the Lakers, but still a very talented team in their era.

Jokic hasn't had a squad like those ever.[/QUOTE]

Not sure lakers were more stacked. Rambs pribably doesnt make the celts. Mchale came off the bench initially

Casuals would argue that magic still has "more rings" when comparing who's better or more skilled between the two.

[QUOTE=Foolish Retard;15046722]I'm a deeply narcissistic homosexual and I know it.[/quote]
[Url=https://i.ibb.co/RpQNPqx/IMG-20221122-211833.jpg]:milton[/url]